Science of Evil

Discourses in traditional cultures extensively deal with the question of so called “evil”, yet the question of “evil” does peculiarly remain effectively almost entirely unaddressed in virtually all academic fields.

This is highly peculiar since so called “evil” is an important social phenomenon which unfortunately causes tremendous amounts of problems and suffering worldwide and therefore requires serious academic attention indeed. In terms of zoology is so called “evil” simply part of the biological phenomenon of parasitism which of course in no way is limited to the Animal Kingdom.

There is thus a strict scientific conceptual definition of evil from natural science that can be applied as initial basis for investigation of phenomena of so called “evil” in many other academic fields as well.

Parasitism beyond the Animal Kingdom certainly biologically constitutes evil despite lacking sentient agency of cognition if such organism attaches itself to the body of a sentient agent of cognition.

It could be argued that parasitism is simply a form of biological coexistence, a type of evolutionary niche and that is undoubtedly true yet ignores the gargantuan suffering that this non-elective “coexistence” certainly causes. The fact that there are different forms of coexistence should is no reason whatsoever to refrain from rigorously scientifically study interpersonally imposed forms of coexistence which structurally cause gargantuan pervasive suffering worldwide.

Animal species generally can be anatomically subdivided into herbivores, carnivores and parasites. Carnivores are in comparative evolutionary terms midway between herbivores and parasites in that they cause suffering during the killing of prey, yet usually not for long periods of time as do parasites in being attached to other animals. Zoological carnivorism may thus be described as a sort “short-term” parasitism in the sense that the imposed interpersonal attachment does not last long and ends with more or less rapid demise.

Humans are fully anatomically herbivore, yet both Humanist racial supremacists and Nazi racial supremacist have argued that human consumption of meat justifies extreme violence and extreme structural abuse and exploitation against fellow persons. This human behavior is parasitism and not carnivorism considering that humans are anatomically fully herbivore and have no anatomical capacity for hunting without tools except picking and consuming small vulnerable animals such as insects.

While fully anatomically human in terms of teeth, digestive system and inability to hunt prey without resorting to tool use have human Herd Animals developed complex social systems for interactive group parasitism, a.k.a. structural oppression. So called “evil” is thus in terms of social science simply what is known as structural oppression and exists far beyond what is conceived as parasitism in zoological terms. The definition of evil in terms of social science is thus far wider than in terms of natural science. This simply shows that parasitism is far more widespread than assumed in social parasitism existing among herbivores as well.

Structural oppression is a well-established scientific concept in critical studies generally and in intersectional gender science in particular and so this phenomenon needs become better zoologically understood in becoming re-understood as social parasitism, meaning that parasitism is not limited to “carnal parasitism” in the sense as parasitism is traditionally delimited in zoology.

Natural science can do much to help better understand social parasitism as the cartesian dichotomy between the carnal and the cognitive has become increasingly discredited as constituting a notorious form of pseudo-science.

What we have here is meeting of natural science and social science that can help us prevent suffering in strictly scientific ways as current utilitarian methods for prevention of suffering constitute ethically reprehensible zero sum games which tend to contribute more to suffering than preventing suffering. Totalitarianism and the Animal Industry of Evil are all based utilitarian rationalization whereby persons “have to be sacrificed” for “the greater good”. The laws of war are intended to minimize collateral damage yet in practice had the opposite effect of legally legitimizing vast extent of collateral damage in leading the wrong in terms of weapons development. The animal movement as since the 1970s dominated by utilitarianism was extremely politically ineffective until when in recent years becoming digitized and thus having become pragmatic and ethically principled rather than utilitarian and ethically unprincipled. The medical industry causes far more suffering that it prevents both to the non-human persons which it torments and to the humans who develop more and more medical conditions due to toxic drugs being implemented implemented instead of necessary salutogenic lifestyles changes away from behaviors such as consuming animal products/ingredients, alcohol and other consumption of recreational drugs such as tobacco and cocaine; lack of physical exercise, harmful psychological stress and of course suffering structural oppression, i.e. social parasitism.

The distinction between “carnal parasitism” and “social parasitism” is however methodologically unhelpful and is furthermore fundamentally unscientific in constituting a barely “secularized” Para-Christian derivation of Christian metaphysics which in turn is a Judaized form of Greek ethnocentrism.

The notion of evil as a strictly scientific term is not only well-founded in both social science and natural science but is furthermore methodologically helpful in straddling the Eurocentric (i.e. Para-Christian) binary between social science and natural science. The irrational social taboo on applying strict scientific methodology on phenomena as traditionally in a Christian and Para-Christian sense “seen” as belonging to the epistemological realm of so called “non-Christian religion” constitutes unreason, pseudo-science and fallacious apophatic epistemology.

Now that we have developed a strictly scientific, interdisciplinary conception of evil can we also engage in methodologically rigorous scientific investigation in every academic field of phenomena of so called “evil”, including importantly the phenomenon of academic bullying which polices the authoritarian and usually retroactively fully discredited epistemological regimes of social terror of paradigm, genre and narrative. In needs be pointed out that paradigm, genre and narrative are simply pseudo-science in irrationally effectively preventing important conceptual, social and technological innovation indeed. This of course should not be misconstrued as in any sense disregarding the importance of scientific debate but rather that academic debate needs to be based on fair play without deployment of structurally fallacious arguments of paradigm, genre and narrative. Such academic debate of fair play where deployment of fallacy (e.g. ad hominem arguments) is cardinal vice and the highest possible standards of non-systemic ethics is cardinal virtue will be highly conducive indeed to accelerating the trajectory of the development of science.

The Christian and Para-Christian conception of evil is one of good versus and evil and while in no way denying the common reality of such polar conflict does performative evil also constitute a spectrum of relative degree of behavioral evilization. This becomes apparent once we commence rigorously scientifically studying structural oppression as constituting zoological parasitism in a wider sense than how the term is currently deployed in zoology.

Structural oppression often fall somewhere in between in the sense as agents of structural oppression typically consider themselves well-intentioned, justified, being in the right, moral and so on and so forth as if morality was somehow directly derived from the flesh. Arguments which they deploy towards this end in and of themselves constitute structural oppression in the sense as being based on typically less than conscious premises of structural oppression such as carno-phallogocentrism, phonocentrism and physionomism.

What is needed hence is a science of evilogy as devoted to the study of phenomena of so called “evil” as unlimited by the pseudo-scientific dichotomies that are the cartesian body/cognition binary between natural science and social science and the implicit Christendom/Christianity barely secularized binary as underpinning the division between academic science and intelligence science.

Evilogy as the methodologically rigorous and scientifically strict study of phenomena of so called “evil” needs be interdisciplinary in studying how fields of science in both academia and in the patriarchal intelligence world discursively, socially and materially produce vast amounts of “evil” by not studying evil by means of the strictest possible, yet epistemologically still applicable methodologies. The term “evil” is here deployed within quotation marks so as to strictly distinguish it from the traditional ethno-religious usage of the term in traditional human cultures around the world. This is certainly not to imply that traditional cultures lack important insights but rather that that these insights need be critically understood by evilogy as well.